## Facts

- John Doe attended a private university in Washington, D.C.
- Doe alleged he tested positive for HIV and was hospitalized, missing a significant portion of a semester.
- To excuse absences, Doe’s physician sent medical statements to university officials verifying his inability to attend classes.
- Doe alleged the university disclosed his confidential medical information to unauthorized faculty and staff.
- Doe alleged the disclosure led to harassment and embarrassment, causing him to withdraw and transfer to another university.
- After the transfer, Doe alleged the university improperly notified the new school of his HIV status.
- Doe sued asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and a claim under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
- Doe sought compensatory and punitive damages, including on the § 504 claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the District of Columbia one-year statute of limitations for defamation-like intentional torts bars the invasion-of-privacy and related tort claims.
2. What limitations period applies in the District of Columbia to a § 504 Rehabilitation Act claim, which has no express federal statute of limitations.
3. Whether § 504 permits compensatory and punitive damages, or instead limits relief to equitable remedies.
4. Whether a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim requires allegations of physical injury under District of Columbia law.

## Decision

- The court granted the university’s motion to dismiss.
- The invasion-of-privacy and related intentional tort claims were dismissed as time-barred under a one-year limitations period.
- The § 504 claim was not time-barred because a three-year District of Columbia limitations period applied.
- The § 504 claim was dismissed to the extent it sought compensatory and punitive damages, which the court held unavailable under § 504 (equitable relief only).
- The negligent infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim due to the absence of alleged physical injury.

## Legal Principles

- In the District of Columbia, invasion of privacy based on unauthorized disclosure of private information may be treated as defamation-like and subject to the one-year statute of limitations in D.C. Code § 12-301(4).
- When a federal statute lacks an express limitations period, a court borrows the most analogous local limitations period; for § 504 claims in the District of Columbia, the three-year period in D.C. Code § 12-301(8) applies.
- Under this decision’s interpretation of § 504 remedies, compensatory and punitive damages are unavailable; relief is limited to equitable remedies.
- Under District of Columbia law, negligent infliction of emotional distress requires allegations of physical injury/impact; emotional distress alone is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s local tort claims as untimely and dismissed the negligent infliction claim for lack of alleged physical injury; although the § 504 claim was timely under a three-year limitations period, it was dismissed insofar as it sought compensatory or punitive damages because the court limited § 504 relief to equitable remedies.


Doe v. Se. Univ., 732 F. Supp. 7 (D.D.C. 1990)